Jump to content
Stocke

graphic settings are getting abused hard

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, CptDirty said:

The only unpopular solution....

that is not true at all...

link to the thread you are in....

 

 

Simple solution which benefits everyone, high, mid or low spec:

Anyone can choose high/mid/low settings but certain settings cap frame rate and view distance along with limits on other goodies.

  • HIGH spec.  If they buy a good system to play the games at their finest that is fine, to get unfair advantage while their system coasts along is not fine. Make them see the same as the other systems if they choose lower settings, not gain advantage. This does not need to be a harsh penalty, frame rates caps are sensible anyway. If they enter the view distance cap then they will know they have gone too far.
  • MID spec. Can choose any settings frame rate etc is naturally capped by system capability. Lower settings still cap out frame rates/view etc by setting maximum allowed.
  • LOW spec. Can choose any settings frame rate etc is naturally capped by system capability. More obvious tools or even warnings would be a nice way to help users tune settings. Having the game "feel" bad with no explanation is going to scare users away. 

Other alternatives:

  • Run a test to see what frame rate is achievable. Set the settings based on that but cap the frame rate, view distance etc to prevent exploit of tricking the test by running other processes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, suds said:

that is not true at all...

There's a big number of squad players who aren't signed up on the forums so their voice is not heard in this thread, among others. 

 

Also, removing the customized graphical options and standardizing it for the sake of "fairness"  ON PC is utter sacrilegious. 

 

It will not go well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, suds said:

that is not true at all...

link to the thread you are in....

 

 

Simple solution which benefits everyone, high, mid or low spec:

Anyone can choose high/mid/low settings but certain settings cap frame rate and view distance along with limits on other goodies.

  • HIGH spec.  If they buy a good system to play the games at their finest that is fine, to get unfair advantage while their system coasts along is not fine. Make them see the same as the other systems if they choose lower settings, not gain advantage. This does not need to be a harsh penalty, frame rates caps are sensible anyway. If they enter the view distance cap then they will know they have gone too far.
  • MID spec. Can choose any settings frame rate etc is naturally capped by system capability. Lower settings still cap out frame rates/view etc by setting maximum allowed.
  • LOW spec. Can choose any settings frame rate etc is naturally capped by system capability. More obvious tools or even warnings would be a nice way to help users tune settings. Having the game "feel" bad with no explanation is going to scare users away. 

Other alternatives:

  • Run a test to see what frame rate is achievable. Set the settings based on that but cap the frame rate, view distance etc to prevent exploit of tricking the test by running other processes.

 

I don't believe in capping fps. I think that would not be liked and I don't think it is good. 

 

People should be able to choose the settings they want in order to achieve the highest fps on the resolution they want of course. Only settings that could possibly be locked are those that do not contribute much negative to the fps but make the experience differ in a big way. Ultimately it is of course  imperative that the visibility experience doesn't differ too much among the different settings on the same rig, which is of course what this whole thread is about.

 

I am not a fan of too much locking of settings actually.... 

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your monitor can probably only display 60fps, some people have 100, 120 or 240hz but these are the minority because the cost is still quite high.

 

capping your system to 60 fps is a good thing even if it can achieve 100fps 100% of the time. If you get a fast monitor and your system is capable then you cap it higher but if it ever drops below the cap, your cap is too high.

 

perhaps I should have explained this, i thought all gamers knew that this is the best way to get smooth performance...

 

squad is still not optimised so most people will see drops, if I was to cap mine following the rules above it would be down at about 40, perhaps even 30 (vehicle explosions kill my system but the smoke effect is fine). I am not capping currently because of this and gameplay is far from smooth.

 

I think you have not seen the forest because of some trees. Think of the effect this would have on the game balance rather than the idea that gamers will be mad. The exploiters will see nicer pictures instead of getting an advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, suds said:

your monitor can probably only display 60fps, some people have 100, 120 or 240hz but these are the minority because the cost is still quite high.

 

capping your system to 60 fps is a good thing even if it can achieve 100fps 100% of the time. If you get a fast monitor and your system is capable then you cap it higher but if it ever drops below the cap, your cap is too high.

 

perhaps I should have explained this, i thought all gamers knew that this is the best way to get smooth performance...

 

squad is still not optimised so most people will see drops, if I was to cap mine following the rules above it would be down at about 40, perhaps even 30 (vehicle explosions kill my system but the smoke effect is fine). I am not capping currently because of this and gameplay is far from smooth.

 

I think you have not seen the forest because of some trees. Think of the effect this would have on the game balance rather than the idea that gamers will be mad. The exploiters will see nicer pictures instead of getting an advantage.

Dont know exactly what you are talking about actually. Most people that never go below 60 probably don't cap because tearing is not such a big issue at those frequencies and higher fps is always better if tearing is not an issue. Personally I have 144Hz and gsync, so no I don't have anything capped at all. If you are around max 60 Hz but sometimes lower which I think most players are then you don't want to cap to avoid tearing because then you will have to go down to 30 to avoid tearing and you will probably spend a lot of time there and not many players would like to do that. Thought all gamers knew that... 

 

If you don't mind tearing then capping is only bad... 

 

Squad is not optimized I have heard so many times now. I think it has been optimized at least once now. If they optimize it more they will probably only put in more features to load it down anyway, so I am not sure performance will go up extremely much, but could be wrong. 

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SpecialAgentJohnson said:

Dont know exactly what you are talking about actually. Most people that never go below 60 probably don't cap because tearing is not such a big issue at those frequencies and higher fps is always better if tearing is not an issue. Personally I have 144Hz and gsync, so no I don't have anything capped at all. If you are around max 60 Hz but sometimes lower which I think most players are then you don't want to cap to avoid tearing because then you will have to go down to 30 to avoid tearing and you will probably spend a lot of time there and not many players would like to do that. Thought all gamers knew that... 

 

If you don't mind tearing then capping is only bad... 

 

Squad is not optimized I have heard so many times now. I think it has been optimized at least once now. If they optimize it more they will probably only put in more features to load it down anyway, so I am not sure performance will go up extremely much, but could be wrong. 

Of course many different parameters have been tweaked along the way that could all be considered in the realm of optimization. Regardless, the game is locked in Unreal Engine 4.15 and many of the newest optimization techniques aren't even relevant.

 

I will continue to make the point in earnest that "graphics settings are getting abused hard" is a complete exaggeration especially when you consider all the other factors that have have a much greater impact on "fairness" in the game.

 

All those things such as variables in connection speed, network replication, ping, tick rate, culling distance and monitor size have a much greater impact on target acquisition than the level of shadows and whether or not the edges of objects in game are jaggy or not.

 

Considering all those factors I would say somebody with a decent mid range system combined with a super fast up/down connection and a huge monitor is going to be more of a "killermachine".

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zylfrax791 said:

[....] game is locked in Unreal Engine 4.15 [...]

it's Unreal Engine 4.16

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zylfrax791 said:

Of course many different parameters have been tweaked along the way that could all be considered in the realm of optimization. Regardless, the game is locked in Unreal Engine 4.15 and many of the newest optimization techniques aren't even relevant.

 

I will continue to make the point in earnest that "graphics settings are getting abused hard" is a complete exaggeration especially when you consider all the other factors that have have a much greater impact on "fairness" in the game.

 

All those things such as variables in connection speed, network replication, ping, tick rate, culling distance and monitor size have a much greater impact on target acquisition than the level of shadows and whether or not the edges of objects in game are jaggy or not.

 

Considering all those factors I would say somebody with a decent mid range system combined with a super fast up/down connection and a huge monitor is going to be more of a "killermachine".

 

 

Well in all fairness that is to some degree correct, but I still want the game to both look gorgeous and be as fun as possible at the same time. I wouldn't say they are "abused" because it implies players are doing something wrong with certain settings, but I still think it is an issue that needs further refinement to make the game more fun And beautiful at the same time. I don't want to feel that I am losing out because of obstructive eye candy. 

Edited by SpecialAgentJohnson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure why this is still such a concern, as there is already a solution built into Squad...the optional server setting Tournament Mode.

 

So lobby, bribe or somehow convince the admins of the servers y'all play on to enable the Tournament setting, and no one will be gaining advantages on those servers with the lowest graphics settings, because they're forced to raise the settings or find another server to play on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have swapped to all low except view distance

I advise everyone to do this as it makes it far easier to see enemies and win. Or hide in the shadows only you can see :P

 

so sad....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, suds said:

I have swapped to all low except view distance

I advise everyone to do this as it makes it far easier to see enemies and win. Or hide in the shadows only you can see :P

 

so sad....

I personally will never do that as in my eyes its cheating.I got killed because of that many times and it pisses me off but on the other hand i have honor in me and i cannot see my self killing a guy thats hiding well in a bush just because my graphics are

on low.

This is a problem as playing this way is no fun at all i dont understand how this exploiting can be fun and cool for some players.

And i like plying this game of ours in high graphics since everything looks beautiful that way.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solution is: adding a server setting which restricts graphical setting.
Each server will decide if they want it and to what extent.

But then the epic client modification fight begins ):

Edited by paragonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's crazy how some of you are actually suggesting capping the frame rate or "force higher graphic settings on higher specs". If that's the case then people will abuse that as well by limiting their CPUs and download custom drivers to "fool" the system.

 

The solution is either make it a server setting, or making foliage cover much more on lower settings, but still rendered "ugly" so it's fast perfomance wise. The lowest shadow setting should be reworked or removed because it ruins the game completely.

 

Red Orchestra 2 is a game that has kinda the same problem, but it's much much more fair compared to this game which turns it from night to day completely when changing shadows/foliage. This game should be about tactical maneuvers but it's hard when some players have it looking like minecraft so it looks like you're crawling in a bare ground when you are actually crawling in heavy grass.

 

It's important to know it's in alpha and I'm sure that the devs knows about this issue and will work on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bahrein I was keeping my settings as high as possible for the same reason. Now ive seen what others see I wont go back until there is some benefit to it. I play Squad every day. Since the day I swapped to Low settings I am getting at least 40% more kills.

 

I did it to test... Now that I know I need this to compete with others doing the same I cant really go back... so lets all have low settings and we can compete on a level field...i'll get more satisfaction knowing I don't have an unfair advantage.

 

Cap it, squeeze it, shame the settings abusers, do something so I can go back to nice looking without compromising my gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, suds said:

@Bahrein I was keeping my settings as high as possible for the same reason. Now ive seen what others see I wont go back until there is some benefit to it. I play Squad every day. Since the day I swapped to Low settings I am getting at least 40% more kills.

 

I did it to test... Now that I know I need this to compete with others doing the same I cant really go back... so lets all have low settings and we can compete on a level field...i'll get more satisfaction knowing I don't have an unfair advantage.

 

Cap it, squeeze it, shame the settings abusers, do something so I can go back to nice looking without compromising my gameplay.

I did not mean anything bad by quoting you.I can understand you totally but i am not just that type of a person.

That reminds me of BF 3 when i played it and i was in the server where even the admin was using hacks it was dreadful i was cursing a lot (not on my mic) so my brother thats older then me asks me if thy all use hacks or game exploits why dont you do it as well it will make no difference and then it hit me,i dont want to be like thous guys and then i stoped playing BF3 and the games of that type untill i found and got Squad.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018-07-24 at 12:29 PM, Makiriv said:

It's crazy how some of you are actually suggesting capping the frame rate or "force higher graphic settings on higher specs". If that's the case then people will abuse that as well by limiting their CPUs and download custom drivers to "fool" the system.

 

The solution is either make it a server setting, or making foliage cover much more on lower settings, but still rendered "ugly" so it's fast perfomance wise. The lowest shadow setting should be reworked or removed because it ruins the game completely.

 

Red Orchestra 2 is a game that has kinda the same problem, but it's much much more fair compared to this game which turns it from night to day completely when changing shadows/foliage. This game should be about tactical maneuvers but it's hard when some players have it looking like minecraft so it looks like you're crawling in a bare ground when you are actually crawling in heavy grass.

 

It's important to know it's in alpha and I'm sure that the devs knows about this issue and will work on it.

Exactly! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/24/2018 at 11:29 AM, Makiriv said:

It's crazy how some of you are actually suggesting capping the frame rate or "force higher graphic settings on higher specs". If that's the case then people will abuse that as well by limiting their CPUs and download custom drivers to "fool" the system.

I already considered that and suggested a solution in my post. 

what is the benefit of allowing the user of a high end system to use the low settings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, suds said:

I already considered that and suggested a solution in my post. 

what is the benefit of allowing the user of a high end system to use the low settings?

Because if other people can use low settings then everyone should do it. It can work if they do it the way you suggested, but I think personally that's the wrong way to tackle the issue. The developers  should should decrease the visibility at the lower settings. If you don't see foliage at the distant, then you shouldn't see the player at that distance. Or that the players should "sink" into the ground at farther distances like in Arma 3. It's not perfect but it's much better than being like a big crawling target out in the open, when you are actually crawling in really high grass behind a tree. It ruins the game a lot for me.

 

They could also increase the visibility on the higher settings. But I don't believe in capping settings for players with high specs.

Edited by Makiriv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Makiriv said:

...But I don't believe in capping settings for players with high specs.

why would that be bad though?

just looking for solutions. we all agree there is an unfortunate issue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe because some of us have "high end pc's" and also have "high end monitors" and currently there is no graphics option on the market which would allow us to play squad at a resolutions like 3440x1440p @ over 100 FPS /w out adjusting some of the settings lower.

This has nothing to do with potato pc's and more to do with market / and the basic economics of the game...

Case in point - shattered horizon [ its a game look it up] released specifically to tap into the gtx 480's when they released.

On release of the gtx 480 the minimum system requirements for that game was... a gtx 480. The game had a very tiny following despite how amazing it was.  - the visuals for that game are still amazing but it's dead and it's not even purchasable any more i don't think.

- Seeing as squad is no where near as optimized as it eventually will be ( seeing as the engine it's built on is still in development ) making a high processing demand on the consumer would result in a low player-base, which would in turn result in a dead game...

Also if you are playing at 1080p, you are playing on potato settings.  If your monitor is only 1080p you have a potato monitor...

Get something like a  PG348Q with a higher res than 1080p if you want to be a Graphics snob.

Edited by Virtue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The conclusion I've come to regarding the graphics settings is that there are way too many variables within the entire "big picture" of the game to render any one particular setting to give a consistent advantage over other players... ergo, "getting the drop" on them.

 

Sure, you might be able to see someone under a tree at a short range with a high end computer switched to low settings however by the same token without view distance set to high you still can't see enemy at medium  to far distance either.

 

I think the whole thing is very exaggerated.

Edited by Zylfrax791

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×